USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · sir20195018

Flood-frequency estimates for Ohio streamgages based on data through water year 2015 and techniques for estimating flood-frequency characteristics of rural, unregulated Ohio streams

Abstract

Estimates of the magnitudes of annual peak streamflows with annual exceedance probabilities of 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, 0.04, 0.02, 0.01, and 0.002 (equivalent to recurrence intervals of 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-years, respectively) were computed for 391 streamgages in Ohio and adjacent states based on data collected through the 2015 water year. The flood-frequency estimates were computed following guidance outlined in Bulletin 17C, developed by the Advisory Committee on Water Information. The Bulletin 17C guidelines retain the basic statistical framework of the superseded Bulletin 17B guidelines; however, the Bulletin 17C guidelines add several enhancements including an improved method of moments approach for fitting the log-Pearson Type III (LPIII) distribution to the flood peaks (called the expected moments algorithm), a generalization of the Grubbs Beck low-outlier test (called the Multiple Grubbs Beck test) that permits identification of multiple potentially influential low floods, and new methods for estimating regional skew and uncertainty. Equations for estimating flood-frequency characteristics at ungaged sites on rural, unregulated streams in Ohio were developed with a two-step process involving ordinary least-squares and generalized least-squares regression techniques. Data from 333 streamgages with 10 or more years of unregulated record were screened for redundancy and a regression dataset was selected that was composed of flood-frequency and basin-characteristic data for 275 streamgages in Ohio and adjacent states. Two sets of equations were developed—one set, referred to as the “simple model,” uses regression region and drainage area as regressor variables, and a second set, referred to as the “full model,” uses regression region, drainage area, main-channel slope, and the percentage of the watershed covered by water and wetlands as regressor variables. The average standard errors of prediction ranged from about 40.5 to 46.5 percent for the simple-model equations and from about 37.2 to 40.3 percent for the full-model equations. For sites meeting the rural, unregulated criteria, flood-frequency estimates determined by means of LPIII analyses are reported along with weighted flood-frequency estimates, computed as a function of the LPIII estimates and the regression estimates. For sites with homogenous periods of regulation, flood-frequency estimates determined by means of LPIII analyses are reported. Ninety-five percent confidence limits are reported for all estimates. Values of regressor variables were determined from digital spatial datasets by means of a geographic information system (GIS). The GIS datasets and the new full-model equations have been incorporated into Ohio’s StreamStats application, a web-based, GIS-backed system designed to facilitate the estimation of streamflow statistics at ungaged locations on streams. Seasonal patterns in peak flows were assessed for 295 streamgages in Ohio. Annual peak flows occurred most frequently between January and April, with March having the highest frequency of occurrence. The month with the fewest number of annual peaks was October. Peak-of-record flows occurred most frequently in March, followed by January (months in which two of Ohio’s most severe widespread floods in recent history occurred). None of the peak-of-record flows occurred in October and only two occurred in November. Temporal trend in annual peak flows were assessed for 133 streamgages on unregulated streams in Ohio with 30 or more years of systematic record. Trends were assessed by computing the rank correlation (as measured with the two-sided Kendall’s tau statistic) between time and annual peak flows. Weak but statistically significant trends were indicated at 15 of the 133 streamgages. Of the 15 streamgages with significant trend in annual peak flows, 12 had an upward trend (positive tau) and 3 had a downward trend (negative tau). All 12 streamgages with positive tau values were at latitudes north of 40°33', and streamgages with negative tau values were at latitudes south of 40°33'.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 38.403202° to 41.977513° latitude; -84.820157° to -80.518991° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G. F. Koltun. 2019-10-10. Flood-frequency estimates for Ohio streamgages based on data through water year 2015 and techniques for estimating flood-frequency characteristics of rural, unregulated Ohio streams. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20195018

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗